A major part of your duties as an adjudicator will involve gathering, handling and evaluating evidence. The purpose of gathering evidence is to establish the truth or falsity of some fact or matter at issue. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are a good reference point for discussions of evidence. See also
Special Agent’s Field Manual,
Appendix 11-3
. You should be aware that these rules, while they may be instructive, are not strictly binding in administrative proceedings. Generally, any evidence that would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence should be admitted in administrative proceedings. But so also, generally, should any oral or documentary evidence that is relevant and material be accepted into the administrative record. This means that a particular piece of evidence must have a tendency (no matter how small) to either prove or dis
prove a fact that has a bearing on the issue at hand (materiality). Despite the relatively broad admissibility of evidence in an administrative proceeding, you should familiarize yourself with the rules of evidence relating to these proceedings.

(b)
Certain Legal Considerations
.

There are certain basic legal issues that you should be aware of in your duties as an adjudicator. For example, the administrative record you create will often be crucial in later proceedings relating to the same individual, such as a rescission of status, possible removal proceedings and relief from deportation, and investigations of fraud. The administrative record will be crucial to a special agent's examination of any fraud or abuse of the immigration laws. The administrative record may even end up befo
re a federal district court judge on review for abuse of discretion or in a federal tort claim or habeas case.

The Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. 3500) requires that a statement in the possession of the United States which was made by a government witness be produced after the government witness has testified upon demand by the defense. (There is no such requirement with regard to witnesses other than government witnesses.) Failure by the government to produce the statement will require the suppression of the testimony of that witness. The term "government witness" means someone called by the government to testify at a later
criminal proceeding, not necessarily the administrative proceeding. Thus, anyone who provides a statement at an administrative proceeding is a potential government witness within the meaning of the rule. The term "statement" has been broadly defined by the courts to include, besides written and signed affidavit form statements, such items as interview notes and tape recordings or other transcriptions of an oral statement. To avoid jeopardizing future criminal cases, the following steps should be taken:

·
Retain all original notes of witness or defendant interviews;

·
Retain all original notes made during surveillance operations; and

·
Retain all original drafts of reports concerning interviews or surveillance operations if they are the first written record of the interview or surveillance.

(c)
Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof
.
[Revised as of 01-11-2006; AD06-12]

The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought.
Matter of Brantigan
,
11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). This means that if an alien seeking a benefit has not shown eligibility, the application should be denied. The government is not called upon to make any showing of ineligibility until the alien has first shown that he is eligible. You may contrast this in your mind with a criminal case or with a removal hearing in which the government must first prove its case.

Once an applicant has met his or her initial burden of proof, he or she can be said to have made a “prima facie case.” This means that the applicant has come forward with the facts and evidence which show that, at a bare minimum, and without any further inquiry, he or she has initial eligibility for the benefit sought. This does not mean that your inquiry is over. An alien may have established initial eligibility, but it is up to you to determine if there are any discretionary reasons why an application sho
uld be denied, or if there are any facts in the record (including facts developed during the course of the adjudicative proceedings, such as during an interview) which would make the applicant ineligible for the benefit. If such adverse factors do exist, it is again the applicant's burden to overcome these factors.

The standard of proof should not be confused with the burden of proof.
See
Appendix 74-14
. The standard of proof applied in most administrative immigration proceedings is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Thus, even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “probably true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof.
See
U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca
, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (defining “more likely than not” as a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.

The preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, however, does not apply to those applications and petitions where a higher standard is specified by law. The statute provides for a higher standard in some cases, such as the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to rebut the presumption of a prior fraudulent marriage pursuant to section
245(e)(3)
of the Act and to determine citizenship of children born out of wedlock pursuant to section
309(a)(1)
of the Act.

Additionally, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not relieve the petitioner or applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. Therefore, if the regulations require specific evidence, the applicant is required to submit that evidence.
Cf.
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)
(requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability).

(d)
Evidentiary Standards
.

Because the strict rules of evidence used in judicial proceedings do not apply in administrative proceedings, a wide range of oral or documentary evidence may be used in a visa petition proceeding or other immigration benefit application proceeding. A copy of a public record (birth certificate, marriage or divorce certificates, adoption decrees, and similar documents) is admissible if the person having custody over the original records has certified the copy. For example, a copy of a divorce decree is admis
sible if the clerk of the court has certified the copy. A regulation,
8 CFR 287.6
, provides that a certified copy of a foreign public record (other than a Canadian record) should also be authenticated by a U.S. Foreign Service officer or, if the country is a party to the Hague Convention on abolition of legalization requirements for foreign public records, by a higher-level official of the foreign country. [See Chapter
11.1(h)(1)
of this Field Manual and
Special Agent’s Field Manual
,
Chapter 4.6
for more information on the Hague Convention and
Special Agents Field Manual
,
Appendix 4-3
for a list of signatory countries.] Note, however, that in 1990, the Service announced that, as a matter of policy, it would accept copies of public records that have been certified by the custodian of the records, even if they are not authenticated by a U.S. Foreign Service officer (or for signatories to the Hague Convention on abolishing legalization requirements for foreign public records, by a higher-level official of the foreign country), as provided for under
8 CFR 287.6
. (See Memorandum from Gene McNary to INS Field Offices (November 19, 1990),
Appendix 11-1
of this field manual.) For this reason, only the custodian of the record needs to certify a foreign public record in order for the foreign public record to be admissible.

(e)
Best Evidence Rule
.

In adjudicating a petition or application for a benefit, you will often deal with evidence and facts which are of a documentary nature, such as marriage dates, dates of birth, death, divorce, criminal records, school records, etc. This often brings into play what is known as the "best evidence rule.” While the best evidence rule is not strictly applicable in an administrative proceeding, you should adhere to it as closely as you can. The rule states that where the contents of a document are at issue in a ca
se, the document itself must be introduced rather than secondary evidence as to its content. For example, if an issue in an interview is the date on which a divorce decree became final, the divorce decree itself should be introduced, rather than a letter stating when the decree became final or a second marriage certificate stating the date of the first divorce. As you can see, the rule provides an external basis for verifying claimed facts. In considering the rule, you should be aware of one major exception
. When a document is a public document, the contents of that document may be proven by a certified copy. Also, when a document is prepared in carbon or multiple copies (as opposed to photocopies created after the fact), each copy is an "original" for purposes of the rule.

(f)
Primary and Secondary Evidence
.

Closely related to the best evidence rule is the concept of primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence is evidence which on its face proves a fact. For example, the divorce certificate is primary evidence of a divorce. Secondary evidence is evidence which makes it more likely that the fact sought to be proven by the primary evidence is true, but cannot do so on its own face, without any external reference. In the above example, church records showing that an individual was divorced at a certain time w
ould be secondary evidence of the divorce. You will often encounter situations in which primary evidence is unavailable. This gives rise to a presumption of ineligibility
, which is the applicant or petitioner’s burden to overcome.
Title
8 CFR 103.2(b)(2)
sets out the procedures relating to unavailability of documents. A petitioner or applicant cannot simply assert that the primary evidence does not exist. The absence of a primary record, instead, must be proven either:

·
By a written statement from the appropriate issuing authority attesting to the fact that no record exists or can be located, or that the record sought was part of some segment of records which were lost or destroyed; or

·
By evidence (such as an affidavit) "that repeated good faith attempts were made to obtain the required document or record."

Note that Appendix C to the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which is available on the internet at
http://travel.state.gov/reciprocity/index.htm
, provides country-specific information on availability of various foreign documents. If this Appendix shows that a particular record is generally not available in a particular country, USCIS may accept secondary evidence without requiring the written statement from the issuing authority.

(g)
Testimony of Witnesses: Competency and Credibility
.

You will frequently take testimony from witnesses in the course of your duties. The strict evidentiary standards that would be followed in a Federal court are not always applicable in an administrative proceeding. Thus, you will usually be free to take the testimony of most witnesses. (However, you also have the authority to decline to accept testimony which is irrelevant or immaterial, or which is simply “overkill.”) In making an evaluation of witnesses, it is helpful to be familiar with some of the concep
ts relating to witnesses. In order for a witness to be legally fit to testify, he or she must be competent to do so (also referred to as having the organic capacity to testify). Competency should be distinguished from credibility, which involves a witness’ trustworthiness and believability. For example, a sane person who tells lies may be competent, but not credible. An insane person who testifies insanely may be considered incompetent. Competency should be distinguished from credibility, which involves a w
itness' trustworthiness and believability. For example, a sane person who tells lies may be competent, but not credible. An insane person who testifies insanely may be considered incompetent. In regards to competency, you should remember a few points:

·
First, the witness only needs to be mentally competent at the time he is to testify. Past or future mental deficiency may be relevant to credibility (believability), but does not affect a witness' ability to testify.

·
Also, you should note that children are not incompetent to testify merely because of their age. Age is only a factor insofar as it renders a witness untrustworthy in his powers of observation, recollection and communication.

·
A witness may be under the influence of medication or a substance which adversely affects his or her ability to testify. If so, the taking of the testimony should be postponed (if possible) until such time as the witness regains his or her faculties. (Conversely, in some cases a person who is normally unable to testify due to certain ongoing mental problems may only be able to testify competently while under proper medication.)

·
Finally, you should note that criminal convictions, even for the offense of perjury, do not disqualify one as a witness, although they certainly have a bearing on credibility.

In any situation where the testimony of a witness is questionable, you should supplement the record with the testimony of another witness or with other evidence relating to the same matter. In doing so you will be ensuring that your decision will stand up to review in further administrative proceedings.

(h)
Documentary Evidence
.

Documentary evidence includes all types of documents, records and writings and is subject to the same considerations regarding competency and credibility as is testimonial evidence, discussed in the preceding paragraph. Documentary evidence may be divided into two categories: public documents and private documents.

(1)
Public Documents
.

Public documents are the official records of legislative, judicial and administrative bodies. Such documents, or copies thereof duly certified by their custodian, are generally admissible as evidence without the testimony of the officer who made the records. In administrative proceedings, such documents are generally admissible.

At
8 CFR 287.6
, regulations indicate the proper method for authenticating public records. As noted, however, the Service announced in 1990 that, as a matter of policy, the Service would no longer require the extra step of the authentication of the certification of a copy of a public record. For both domestic and foreign public records, the certification of the custodian of the record is enough to make the copy admissible. Note that
8 CFR 103.2(b)(4)
.
permits the submission of copies, rather than the original, of documents. This regulation does NOT mean that public records need not be certified. In the case of domestic or foreign public records, the correct interpretation of 8 CFR 103.2(b)(4) is that:

·
The petitioner or applicant MUST obtain a certified copy of the record, but need not have the certification authenticated by a U.S. Foreign Service Officer as described in 8 CFR 287.6(b) or (c);

·
The petitioner or applicant may then make a plain copy (i.e., it need not be endorsed as a true copy by a U.S. consular officer, a U.S. Immigration Officer, or an attorney) of the certified copy, and submit the plain copy of the certified copy to
USCIS
;

·
If the petitioner or applicant submits a plain copy of the certified copy, the petitioner or applicant MUST retain the certified copy and submit it upon the request of the
USCIS
officer.

Birth or baptismal records maintained by church officials are not considered public documents, but may be accepted as secondary evidence of birth, if the actual place of birth is indicated on the certificate. Delayed birth certificates are also not considered as conclusive evidence of birth.

(2)
Nonexistence
.

The absence of an official record may be proven by a certified written statement by the official ordinarily having custody of such records, or by an appointed deputy that, after diligent search, no record of the event is found to exist. Such a statement must be accompanied by a duly authorized authentication that the writer has legal custody of such records. Although generally accepted, there is one inherent weakness to a statement of nonexistence...it relies on the other unsubstantiated evidence submitted
about the location of the claimed event and record.

(3)
Private Documents
.

Private documents include all documents other than official records of legislative, judicial or administrative bodies of government. Private documents, especially business records and tax records are often introduced as supporting evidence for visa petitions. Circumstances surrounding the creation of such records, such as evidence that a document was created immediately at the time of the event it purports to record, as part of the regular conduct of business, may affect the weight given to the document.

(i)
Expert and Opinion Evidence
.

On occasion, you may require the testimony of an expert witness to assist in completing a case. Such a witness may be in the field of handwriting, fraudulent documents or a variety of other subjects. A petitioner or applicant may also occasionally offer testimony from someone claimed to be an expert. Generally, in federal court, testimony of lay witnesses regarding their opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful
to a clear understanding of his/her testimony or the determination of a fact at issue. See Rule 701, Federal Rules of Evidence.

Unlike most witnesses, an expert is permitted to give his or her opinion on a particular set of facts or circumstances involving scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. In order to provide such opinion testimony, the witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.

When an expert witness is offered, the person offering the testimony of the witness must prove the experience and qualifications of the witness and the facts of the case at hand. The testimony of expert witnesses has been accepted by
USCIS
, and findings based on their testimony have been upheld by the courts. In cases involving handwriting, counterfeit and altered documents, the ICE Forensic Document Laboratory may be used.

(j)
Privileged Information
.

While rare (especially in the case of family based petitions and applications), sometimes you may encounter the issue of privilege. A testimonial privilege allows the holder who invokes it to bar testimony that would violate the privilege. In Federal Court, as well as in an immigration proceeding, a claim of privilege will be decided on a case by case basis. See FRE 501. In contrast to incapacity of a witness, which cannot be waived, a privilege may be waived by the holder. Such a privilege may be waived by
a failure to invoke the privilege. Some of the more common testimonial privileges are lawyer-client, husband-wife, and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Each privilege differs slightly as to details, such as whose testimony may be barred and who may invoke the privilege. The scope of the material covered by the privilege also differs.

(1)
Lawyer-Client Privilege
.

The lawyer-client privilege may be invoked by the client to prevent anyone from testifying about confidential communications between the lawyer and client made for the purpose of facilitating legal services.

(2)
Husband-Wife Privilege
.

There are two separate evidentiary privileges arising from the marital relationship. First, the marital adverse testimony privilege protects one spouse from testifying against the other during the marriage. A witness spouse alone has the privilege to refuse to testify adversely and may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying. See
Trammel v. U.S., 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
The second privilege prohibits disclosure of confidential communications made during the marriage. This second privilege can be invoked by the alien to prevent his or her spouse from giving certain testimony. Generally, in either judicial or administrative proceedings, one spouse can testify in a matter involving the other spouse if the testimony is:

·
On behalf of the other spouse;

·
Against the other spouse, if the matters arose before the marriage;

·
Against the other spouse where it appears the marriage was not entered into in good faith, but with the intention of using the marriage ceremony in a scheme to defraud under the immigration laws;

·
Against the other spouse in a prosecution under
section 278
of the Act (importation of alien for an immoral purpose). Whenever possible, you should supplement the adverse testimony of one spouse against the other with other evidence.

Note

You should also recall that it is the applicant or petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for a benefit. Thus, the failure to provide necessary evidence may result in denial of a petition if this burden has not been met. See
8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)
-
(15)
. For this reason, it is extremely unlikely that you will ever encounter a claim of husband-wife privilege in an adjudication proceeding.

(3)
Self-Incrimination
.

Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, a witness may refuse to answer questions and to give testimony if the answers will incriminate or tend to incriminate the witness under Federal or state criminal laws. If a witness has already been convicted or if prosecution is barred, the privilege ceases to be applicable.

Removal or other similar proceedings are not criminal proceedings. An alien required to give self-incriminating evidence in such administrative proceedings cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, unless his or her testimony might bring or tend to bring the alien within the proscription of a United States federal or state criminal statute.

If an alien is apprehended and (before being advised of the “Miranda” rights) makes certain admissions and produces documents which are used to establish deportability, such evidence does not violate his or her right against self-incrimination. Removal proceedings are civil in nature and not subject to the same constitutional safeguards as in criminal proceedings (
Chavez-Raya v. INS 519 F.2nd 397 (7
th
Cir. 1975)).

Self-incrimination relates to the disclosure of facts. The facts which are protected from disclosure are distinctly facts involving criminal liability. The immunity afforded relates to the past and does not endow the person who testified with a license to commit perjury. Thus, where a witness had previously testified in one way but now claims the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury if required to testify again, the witness cannot claim the privilege as a prospective perjurer. The privilege applies o
nly to the person himself testifying, not to any third person or corporation.

(k)
Rebutting Derogatory Evidence
.

Derogatory information, like supporting documentation, need not comply with the strict rules of evidence. However, the adjudicating officer must keep in mind that the applicant or petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to inspect and rebut adverse information, except certain classified materials, which should be discussed in general terms without jeopardizing the security of the information or the source. [See
8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)
and
Matter of Tahsir
, 16 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 1976)
. See also
Appendix 10-5
of this field manual.]

(l)
Impeachment
.

Impeachment is the process of discrediting a witness. In both judicial and administrative proceedings, a witness’ reputation for veracity is a pertinent avenue of attack for impeachment purposes. Questioning with a view to impeachment is often directed toward showing the witness’ conviction of a crime affecting the witness’ veracity or other matters tending to show insensibility to the obligations to tell the truth when under oath. A conviction for perjury is particularly pertinent. However, the fact that a
witness is shown to have lied under oath on one occasion does not necessarily require a conclusion that the entire testimony is to be discredited.

Discrepancies in statements made by a witness do not necessarily discredit the witness. The fact that a witness is sometimes confused and self-contradictory goes only to the weight of testimony, not to the witness’ competency. It is to be expected that even an honest witness, in speaking of a past event, will not repeatedly reproduce it in its entirety with unchanged fullness of detail. A variation in recollection does not necessarily damage credibility. In fact, if a number of witnesses agree exactly in th
eir testimony as to the details of some event, collusion may be suspected. Of course, certain discrepancies on important points tend to discredit the witness. Bias for or against a party to a proceeding, interest in the outcome, and corruption (bribery or subordination of perjury or of other improper act) strongly tend to discredit a witness and are always appropriate subjects of inquiry for impeachment purposes. Where it is anticipated that important issues of fact will be contested in judicial or administ
rative proceedings, obtain and report all available information concerning witnesses that tends to impeach them.

Aliens or witnesses who have signed statements sometimes indicate that they desire to retract them or that they will give contrary testimony when later called upon to testify. Such witnesses cannot be prevented from retracting or changing prior statements. However, retraction of prior statements made under oath may, under certain conditions, render the witnesses liable for perjury. Furthermore, witnesses have a legal right to claim that written statements are not true, or that they were obtained by fraud or
duress. Any such statements or claims made by a prospective government witness should always be reported. (Likewise, when taking written statements, it is prudent to indicate that the statement was made voluntarily and without duress.)

If you decide that the statement or testimony of a petitioner or applicant, or of any other witness, is not credible, your written decision should indicate this conclusion. It generally is not enough simply to say that the witness is not credible. Instead, your decision should give the specific reason or reasons for your conclusion, and refer to the elements of the record that support the conclusion.

Originals of application and petition forms as well as documents issued to support applications or petitions must be submitted unless previously filed with USCIS. Documents typically submitted as originals include: labor certifications, Form DS-2019 (
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/forms/forms_1342.html
), medical examinations, affidavits, formal consultations, letters of current employment and other statements.

Official documents issued by USCIS or by the Immigration and Naturalization Service need not be submitted as originals unless required by USCIS.

For other forms of evidence, unless otherwise required by applicable regulations or form instructions, a legible photocopy of any other supporting document may be submitted. Applicants and petitioners need only submit those original documents necessary to support the benefit sought. However, original documents submitted when not required will remain a part of the record.

(2)
When USCIS Keeps Originals or Requests Originals
.

As
a general rule, applicants and petitioners should be allowed to keep originals unless the originals are required by regulation to be submitted. If there is reason to question the authenticity of the original document for which a photocopy has been submitted, USCIS may then request the original document.

(3)
Unsolicited Originals Not Returned Unless Requested
.

When applicants or petitioners submit original documents that were not required, USCIS will retain the documents and make them part of the record. USCIS retains the originals due to the cost of returning them. However, if an applicant or petitioner submits a written request, USCIS will return the original records.

(4)
Requested Original or Copy of Document Not Submitted
.

If an applicant or petitioner does not submit the requested original or copy of the document by the deadline, USCIS may deny or revoke the application or petition.
8 CFR 103.2(b)(4)
,
(5)
.

(n) Birth Certificates from Puerto Rico. As of September 30, 2010, all birth certificates issued in Puerto Rico before July 1, 2010 are invalid, pursuant to the laws of that Commonwealth. How adjudicators treat a Puerto Rico birth certificate submitted in support of an application or petition depends on both the issuance date of the birth certificate and the submission date of the application or petition.

(1) Petitions and Applications Received on or before September 30, 2010. In any case involving a petition or application filed on or before September 30, 2010, officers will accept as valid a Puerto Rico birth certificate that was validly issued before or after July 1, 2010, even if the case is adjudicated after September 30, 2010. In instances where there is suspicion of fraud, follow standard procedures for requesting additional documents, referring to FDNS, or other applicable action. That the birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010 or submitted near the invalidation date, does not by itself create any presumption of fraud or warrant additional scrutiny.

(2) Petitions and Applications Received After September 30, 2010.

(A) In any case received after September 30, 2010, officers will accept as valid a Puerto Rico birth certificate that was validly issued before July 1, 2010 only if the submission is postmarked or bears evidence that it was shipped to USCIS via a carrier other than the U.S. Postal Service no later than September 30, 2010. For example, a birth certificate issued on June 30, 2010 will be accepted if the certificate's submission is postmarked no later than September 30, 2010. In instances where there is suspicion of fraud, follow standard procedures for requesting additional documents, referring to FDNS, or other applicable action. That the birth certificate was issued immediately prior to July 1, 2010 does not by itself create any presumption of fraud or warrant additional scrutiny.

(B) For cases received after September 30, 2010 and postmarked or shipped via a carrier other than the U.S. Postal Service after September 30, 2010, officers should verify that the submitted Puerto Rico birth certificate (whether original or a copy) was issued on or after July 1, 2010.

(i) If the birth certificate was issued on or after July 1, 2010, proceed with the adjudication pursuant to all applicable laws, regulations, and SOPs.

(ii) If the birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010, and the submission was postmarked or shipped via a carrier other than the U.S. Postal Service after September 30, 2010, the officer should prepare an RFE. The RFE must specifically state that the petitioner or applicant must submit a new birth certificate issued by the General Vital Statistics Office of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Department of Health) on or after July 1, 2010.

If ...

And ...

And ...

And ...

Petition/Application is postmarked on or before September 30, 2010

The birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010

There is no indication that the document is fraudulent

Accept as valid Puerto Rico birth certificate issued before July 1, 2010, even if the case is adjudicated after September 30, 2010, and proceed to adjudicate pursuant to all applicable laws, regulations, and SOPs.

The birth certificate was issued on or after July 1, 2010

There is no indication that the document is fraudulent

Verify the submitted Puerto Rico birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010 and proceed to adjudicate pursuant to all applicable laws, regulations, and SOPs.

Petition/Application is postmarked after September 30, 2010

The birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010

There is no indication that the document is fraudulent

Verify the submitted Puerto Rico birth certificate was issued before July 1, 2010 and prepare an RFE that specifically states the petitioner or applicant must submit a new birth certificate issued by the General Vital Statistics Office of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Department of Health) on or after July 1, 2010.

The birth certificate was issued on or after July 1, 2010

There is no indication that the document is fraudulent

Verify the submitted Puerto Rico birth certificate was issued on or after July 1, 2010 and proceed to adjudciate pursuant to all applicable laws, regulations, and SOPs.

NOTE: This memorandum addresses the validity of Puerto Rico birth certificates only as it relates to the date of issuance. This memorandum neither makes substantive changes to any adjudicative procedures relating to the credibility of documents, nor calls into question the correctness of past decision involving Puerto Rico birth certificates.

(3) Acceptance of Puerto Rico Birth Certificates at an Application Support Center. For purposes of establishing identity at an Application Support Center (ASC), ASC personnel should determine whether to accept a Puerto Rico birth certificate based upon its validity at the time of presentation.

From July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, an ASC may accept a Puerto Rico birth certificate issued before, on, or after July 1, 2010.

After September 30, 2010, an ASC may accept a Puerto Rico birth certificate only if it was issued on or after July 1, 2010.

Acceptability of Puerto Rico birth certificates as identification documents at ASCs must be determined based only on validity at the time of presentation (and not based on when the petition or application requiring appearance was received).

NOTE: As a result of the legislative amendment that extended the validity date of Puerto Rico birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, as well as Puerto Rico's efforts to increase staff to process a high volume of requests, USCIS does not anticipate that most citizens will have difficulty obtaining new birth certificates in a timely fashion. If Puerto Rico is unable to timely meet demand for new certificates as September 30, 2010 approaches, additional guidance will be issued.